Case law

Hoffman v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

188 A.D. 414 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1919

The plaintiffs called a witness who by experience, training and observation abundantly qualified himself to testify as to the common practice in building platforms with reference to their distance from the tracks. … Clearly the question was in all respects proper.

Scavetta v. Wechsler

149 A.D.3d 202 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2017

This rule immunizes careless supervision of domestic animals by their owners and leaves those harmed in the State of New York without recourse. … The Bard rule was not established without controversy.

Ramm v. Ramm

34 A.D.2d 667 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 13, 1970

The judgment appealed from adjudged that Elsa and August Ramm were legally divorced in January, 1962, and by affirming that judgment the majority is clearly applying the Mexican divorce law. … This is not to say that the acts of someone other than the person named cannot thereafter be ratified or adopted by the principal, but I do not think ratification has been established at bar and the majority does not claim

City of New York v. 777-779 Eighth Avenue Corp.

226 A.D.2d 216 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 16, 1996

Here, the City clearly satisfied the Arcara standard. … Finally, we find that, contrary to defendants’ assertions, the subject premises is an "establishment”, as defined by the State Sanitary Code (10 NYCRR 24-2.1), qualifying as "any place in which entry, membership, goods or

Larsen v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

97 A.D. 150 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1904

This also is established by the petition and is not denied. … Until some legislative enactment changes the definition of an infant poor person, we shall feel constrained to hold no distinction between those whose parents have qualified as their guardians ad litem, and others.

Walsh v. Gray

214 A.D. 296 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 1925

$2,000 at any time within said term; that thereafter, on the 26th day of December, 1922, the said Hodges died leaving a last will duly admitted to probate, appointing plaintiffs the executors thereof, and that they duly qualified … McFee (supra, 621 ) the court said: “ The right to redeem is the essential characteristic of a mortgage, and a bill of sale of chattels with a separate defeasance is as clearly a mortgage as if the defeasance formed a part

Bregman v. 111 Tenants Corp.

97 A.D.3d 75 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 2012

Here, in contrast, plaintiffs assertions are insufficient to establish that she is the only shareholder whom the newly adopted rule affects. … Notably, it is not purely a question of law that clearly appears on the face of the record, unavoidable by respondent if raised; rather, had it been timely raised, defendant could have submitted evidence seeking to disprove

Conduit & Foundation Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

111 A.D.2d 230 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 13, 1985

Clearly, even the appearance of such improprieties would cause a responsible bidder to hesitate before participating in another sealed bidding with the public agency involved. … What this record establishes is that the Authority, charged with the obligation to expend taxpayer’s money, has sought to do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

Lang v. Lang

9 A.D.2d 401 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1959

None of these qualifying elements are present in this case. … Thus, generally, the custody of children is to be established, whenever possible, on a long-term basis.

Tiger v. Tiger

155 A.D.3d 1386 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 2017

The record reflects that the wife is expected to qualify for Medicare and will bear the expenses associated with that and any supplemental coverage. 3 . … The husband testified that no trust was set up because there were insufficient funds in the estate to establish trusts. 4 .

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

146 A.D.2d 212 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 1989

As originally enacted in 1983, the Lemon Law did not establish an informal dispute resolution mechanism. … While we agree that arbitrators may not direct further repairs, such evidence is clearly relevant to the ultimate issue of whether the consumer qualifies for a refund or replacement.

Felder v. Storobin

100 A.D.3d 11 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 12, 2012

A special referee conducted a line-by-line examination of the designating petition, and concluded that it contained a sufficient number of valid and qualifying signatures. … The requirement that proof of wrongful intent is necessary to sustain a fraud cause of action is clearly ensconced in New York law (see Jo Ann Homes at Bellmore v Dworetz, 25 NY2d 112, 119 [1969]; Smith v Ameriquest Mtge.

In re Shah

258 A.D.2d 275 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1999

The court determined that the AIP would, from the standpoint of his residence, qualify for Medicaid in New York. … However, the partial nature of the transfer of the assets in the John XX. case was clearly a response to the existence of the 36-month “look-back” period, that is, the period during which Medicaid benefits might be denied

Weisel v. Hagdahl Realty Co.

241 A.D. 314 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 1934

Plaintiff’s motion was denied, it being held that “ This case is clearly within either C. P. A. Sec. 1083-a or 1083-b. … Quite clearly it appears that this section applies only where a deficiency judgment is sought after an actual sale.

De Mayo v. Yates Realty Corp.

35 A.D.2d 700 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 1970

The record establishes that the accident happened under different circumstances than those claimed by the plaintiff at the trial. … The Trial Judge clearly adopted the version of the plaintiff that the lights went out while she was descending the stairs. Under the circumstances, plaintiff was within the precedents and entitled to recover.

Maynard v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

208 A.D. 112 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 1924

out of the moneys to be paid to her in satisfaction of said judgment aforesaid the full sum of Seven Hundred Thousand ($700,000) Dollars be paid over to said parties of the third part, hereto, or to such of them as may qualify … That was clearly recognized when the $300,000 was paid to her.

O'Doherty v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.

113 A.D. 636 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 1906

J., clearly assumes that had the defendant elicited.anything material to the pase he could not thereafter have impeached the witness, although such witness subsequently was sworn for. the plaintiff, and the case of Coulter … In such cases not only the facts, but the coiiclusions to which they lead, may be tes *642 tified to by Qualified experts.”

In re Bailey

261 A.D. 64 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 8, 1941

but two years’ study of medicine and that petitioner in order to meet the requirements of this State would have to study two additional years in a registered medical school and obtain a degree therefrom before he would be qualified … This section was only intended by the Legislature to apply to exceptional cases where the merit of the applicant is clearly established to the satisfaction of the Regents. The burden of proof is upon the applicant.

Tutunjian v. Conroy

55 A.D.3d 1128 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 2008

To ascertain that intent, we first read the statute literally and determine whether its language is unambiguous and clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 76; Matter … Thus, “[a] charter commission may he established by a city governing body notwithstanding the existence of such a commission previously created by the city mayor.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

98 A.D.3d 796 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 16, 2012

We are of the view that they do so qualify and, therefore, that petitioner is entitled to the exemption set forth in Tax Law § 1115 (n) (4). … As such, we conclude that the Tribunal’s determination was irrational and clearly erroneous and that petitioner has satisfied its burden of establishing “that its interpretation of the statute is not only plausible, but also